The evolution of Kenya's animal health surveillance system and its potential for efficient detection of zoonoses.

Introduction: Animal health surveillance systems in Kenya have undergone significant changes and faced various challenges throughout the years. Methods: In this article, we present a comprehensive overview of the Kenya animal health surveillance system (1944 to 2024), based on a review of archived documents, a scoping literature review, and an examination of past surveillance assessments and evaluation reports. Results: The review of archived documents revealed key historical events that have shaped the surveillance system. These include the establishment of the Directorate of Veterinary Services in 1895, advancements in livestock farming, the implementation of mandatory disease control interventions in 1944, the growth of veterinary services from a section to a ministry in 1954, the disruption caused by the Mau Mau insurrection from 1952 to 1954, which led to the temporary halt of agriculture in certain regions until 1955, the transition of veterinary clinical services from public to private, and the progressive privatization plan for veterinary services starting in 1976. Additionally, we highlight the development of electronic surveillance from 2003 to 2024. The scoping literature review, assessments and evaluation reports uncovered several strengths and weaknesses of the surveillance system. Among the strengths are a robust legislative framework, the adoption of technology in surveillance practices, the existence of a formal intersectoral coordination platform, the implementation of syndromic, sentinel, and community-based surveillance methods, and the presence of a feedback mechanism. On the other hand, the system's weaknesses include the inadequate implementation of strategies and enforcement of laws, the lack of standard case definitions for priority diseases, underutilization of laboratory services, the absence of formal mechanisms for data sharing across sectors, insufficient resources for surveillance and response, limited integration of surveillance and laboratory systems, inadequate involvement of private actors and communities in disease surveillance, and the absence of a direct supervisory role between the national and county veterinary services. Discussion and recommendations: To establish an effective early warning system, we propose the integration of surveillance systems and the establishment of formal data sharing mechanisms. Furthermore, we recommend enhancing technological advancements and adopting artificial intelligence in surveillance practices, as well as implementing risk-based surveillance to optimize the allocation of surveillance resources.